Font Size: 

Each student has different strategies and thinking processes in solving problems depending on the level of understanding they have. Metacognitive deals with students' thinking and their ability to use certain learning strategies appropriately. These strategies include planning(P), monitoring (M) and reflection (R).This study aims to identify and describe students’ metacognitive thinking process in solving covalent bonding based on student academic ability level. One hundred eight high school students in Indonesia participated in the study. Data were collected in five stages. First, the researcher conducts the adaptation of the condition and environment of the teaching and learning activities in progress so as to obtain field notes that describe the students' activity and communication skills. Second, students do a problem-solving test (TPM) of covalent bonds to obtain a student's TPM score. Third, students are classified into upper, middle and lower academic groups based on field notes, student academic data, TPM score and teacher suggestions. Fifteen students consisting of five students in each group were interviewed to reveal their metacognitive thinking process. Finally, the data is tested for its validity by source triangulation. The data analysis technique uses summative content analysis consisting of three stages: identifying and calculating the apparent metacognitive thinking process indicators, comparing the results of the subject with each other in the same group, and interpreting to obtain the metacognitive thinking process pattern of the student in solving the covalent bond problem.

 

The results of the research that: students’ groups of upper, middle and lower academic abilities have metacognitive thinking process of planning dimensions with indicators: thinking/reading/writing what ones knows and does not know (P-1); determining goals (P-2); Determining the problem-solving strategies (P-3); Determining intermediate results that can be achieved (P-4); and planning representation (molecular formula/structure, reaction equation, text, etc) to support understanding (P-5).

At the monitoring dimensions, metacognitive thinking process of upper group includes indicators: repeatedly reading a material until one can understand (M-1); using rules such as: molecular formula/structure, equation, diagram and graph (M-2); Monitoring something that is considered error such as writing, drawing, molecular formula/structure and others (M-3); and monitoring carefully in problem solving (M-4). The middle group has monitoring dimensions with indicators: (M-1); (M-2); and (M-4). The lower groups have (M-1) and (M-2)

 

At the reflection dimensions, metacognitive thinking process of upper groups includes indicators: reflecting on the concepts/objectives have been achieved (R-1) and reflecting implementation/application more efficient strategy (R-2). The middle group has only (R-1), and no reflection by the lower group.

 

Tabel 1. Students’ Metacognitive Thinking Process in Solving Covalent Bonding Problem Based on Academic Ability Level

 

Indicators

Academic Ability Level

Upper

Middle

Lower

Planning

P-1

P-1

P-1

P-2

P-2

P-2

P-3

P-3

P-3

P-4

P-4

P-4

P-5

P-5

P-5

Monitoring

M-1

M-1

M-1

M-2

M-2

M-2

M-3

M-4

 

M-4

 

 

Reflection

R-1

R-1

 

R-2

 

 

 

Based on the description above, it can be concluded that the students’ group of upper and middle academic ability are doing metacognitive thinking with dimensions of planning, monitoring, and reflection in solving covalent bonding problems, which the upper group has more varied metacognitive thinking process at monitoring and reflection dimensions. The lower group only do the planning and the monitoring dimensions. Therefore, teachers need to trace metacognitive in learning so that students are more careful in determining problem-solving strategies and obtain expected learning outcomes

metacognitive thinking process; covalent bonding; academic ability level